Perry Mason Moment in LA Trial: Surprise Video Exonerates Defendant

Evidence

Perry Mason Moment in LA Trial: Surprise Video Exonerates Defendant

Posted Jul 1, 2008, 11:45 am CDT
By Martha Neil

A drug possession trial in Los Angeles ended abruptly after dramatic courtroom developments. When a surprise videotape of the defendant's arrest was played in court Friday by the defense, it contradicted the testimony of two arresting police officers, who are now the focus of a new investigation.

On Monday, after prosecutors had a chance to review the videotape, which was taken by a surveillance camera at a nearby building, they acknowledged it was not consistent with the officers' sworn testimony, the Los Angeles Times reports. Superior Court Judge Monica Bachner then dismissed the cocaine possession case against Guillermo Alarcon Jr., 29, who works at a grocery store.

A police internal affairs investigation has now been launched against the two officers, who reportedly said in testimony that they chased Alarcon into an alley by his Hollywood apartment building and saw him throw away an object that turned out to be cocaine. However, the videotape shows it took a team of police more than 20 minutes to find the cocaine, which a defense lawyer says wasn't Alarcon's. Additionally, at one point an officer apparently tells another to "be creative" when writing the arrest report.

Deputy Public Defender Victor Acevedo, who represented Alarcon, said the case was "completely trumped up," apparently during courtroom comments to Bachner, according to the newspaper. "They have two officers who came into court and blatantly lied and planted evidence," he told the judge yesterday.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Marc - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 4 hours, 21 minutes ago

Wonder how many other such arrests in the American war on drugs are faked up by police forces looking to improve their conviction records? Or are they just going to claim it was a “one of” incident and sweep the problem under the carpet again?
Posted by Jan Bielawski - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 2 hours, 34 minutes ago

Nothing has changed since Galileo. Then the authorities ignored evidence and kept insisting the Sun revolved around the Earth. Today authorities ignore scientific evidence and hold on to frivolous prohibition laws. And the ridiculous scenario of alcohol prohibition repeats itself: criminals appear where none existed before, crooks develop truly poisonous concentrated versions of otherwise benign substances like coca leaves or marijuana. Meanwhile, nicotine - one of the most addictive and poisonous drugs - remains legal. Pure Monty Python.
Posted by ed wood - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 17 minutes ago

The L A District Attorney is well aware of purjered testimony by law officers and has been complicit in this whole mess. This is NOT an isolated incident. It happens all the time. Until courts start putting lying officers in jail and disbarring prosecutors for allowing it to happen, nothing will change.
Posted by Johnny Miller - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 22 hours, 5 minutes ago

I’d like to see any DA or prosecuting attorneys that knows he is using false evidence or testimony, have to serve the time himself. I think it would cut down on this kind of case.
Posted by Bob - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 56 minutes ago

If the video was available before trial, the prosecutor probably would have dismissed the charges long ago. I’d like to know when the defense attorney found the video and whether he held onto it until trial just to make a public spectacle of things. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.
Posted by Elroy - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 11 hours, 42 minutes ago

@bob: If he did have the tape before and held it back until trial all the better. Now at least these officers will be held accountable. I would not have been surprised if the tape was shown before trial that the case was dismissed and the officers walked away with it.

It’s not just a US thing either. As long as police and prosecuters are judged by the percentage of cases they solve or number of tickets they write, the system encourages this behaviour.

I’m surprised with so many effort being spent on private companies playing by the rules and requiring employees to sign of on all sort of ethics rules and do courses, that so little attention is being paid anywhere to the public sector.
Posted by Jonathan Edwards - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 41 minutes ago

Remember, the guy has a public defender. You don’t suppose the PD has enough to do without deliberately hanging on to something for an actual trial? How many cases does he have on his desk, and why would he hold on to something that could clear a case and save him time? A public defender isn’t going to get anything out of it by holding onto evidence.
Posted by MRL - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 24 minutes ago

I agree with #7. I am a full-time public defender. Any evidence that would clear a case for my client I bring to the attention of the DA. We have nothing to gain. Its not about winning cases but obtaining the best results for our clients.... Now whether the DAs listen is another story....
Posted by Jusitn - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 10 hours, 12 minutes ago

The way I see it, the defendant ran from the cops. In my mind, that puts at least an idea that he was doing something wrong. Secondly, I think this case just teaches us that if you have drugs, run from the cops and throw them somewhere the cops won’t find them. I think the officers found the drugs, knew they belonged to the defendant, and just went to far in their report/testimony in order to ensure the defendant was convicted.

And Jan B. I sincerely hope you don’t really believe what you said about coca leaves and marijuana. And if you do, I hope you’re not an attorney- that’s exactly what we need, more attorneys that do coke or pot. You’re right, nicotine is very addictive and very poisonous- but nowhere near as destructive as cocaine, and anyone that says otherwise is just sincerely deranged or misguided. I deal with coke and crack defendants every week, they’re much worse off than the people I know that smoke cigarettes.
Posted by Chris - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 9 hours, 59 minutes ago

Question from a law student: IIf there is no benefit in the PD holding onto the tape until trial, why did he? I’m not questioning his performance - he obviously successfully defended his client - but from a strategy standpoint, I’d love to hear more thoughts on why he might have waited.
Posted by PCC - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 9 hours, 40 minutes ago

The PD’s strategy was to force the police to testify to something the he knew they would lie about. Exposing how corrupt some LA police STILL are, even after Rampart, etc., was likely is ultimate goal. Whether that is ethical or not is another story.
Posted by Nicole - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 9 hours, 28 minutes ago

#9, if the cops were honest in the first place, they would have much more credibility. This is not simply an issue of “going too far” in their report. They not only lied in the report to make the defendant seem guilty, but they then LIED on the witness stand, which is perjury!

And if you wonder why some suspects run instead of just surrendering to the police- this situation is a prime example! The police lied in their report then lied in court. if this video had not been discovered, the defendant would have gone to jail because who would believe a random, non-famous criminal defendant over two police officers? The bottom line is that he went through “the system” and STILL almost didn’t get a fair trial. I would probably run, too.

It’s pretty difficult to make excuses for the officers in this situation.
Posted by Jim Gilbert - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 9 hours, 20 minutes ago

During the trial of a man accused of breaking into a drug store and stealing what amounted to a garbage bag full of prescription drugs, the arresting officer testified that, “From across the street, I saw the defendant running out of the store and i chased him until I caught him 4 blocks away. I never lost sight of him” I asked him, “Are you sure about that,” and he responded, “Absolutely.” He had lied and after the trial and a verdict of guilty he admitted that he had lied. The truth was that when the defendant ran from the store, he hid in some bushes for almost an hour. he was later arrested while walking down the street by the officer. He was holding the bag full of drugs and his bare feet were bloody from the store door’s broken glass. I asked the officer, “Why did you lie. You didn’t need to lie.” His response was, “I wanted to make sure that the scumbag didn’t get off. The lie didn’t really matter” No one heard our exchange. I was very young and naive then. Later I asked my father, who had been an FBI agent during the 40’s how common such lying was in court. I’ll never forget his response through many hearings and trials. “Jim, you need to know that the only law enforcement office never to lie was Andy Griffith.” So, he was saying,, only in fiction do police officers always tell the truth. I understood that he was condemning himself as well. I have no doubt that many if not most offices have never lied in court, but what my father was saying was, “Jim, just because they’re sworn to tell the truth, don’t assume they always will. Don’t count on an officer to verify your client’s story.Verify it some other way if you can.”
Posted by Janine - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes ago

Assuming the PD did have the tape before trial and purposely held it back, I don’t see an ethical problem. The effect on his client’s case was the same either way. And the PD served a HUGE public interest by bringing the officers’ false testimony to light. This will likely make other police officers think twice before they “exaggerate” the facts, at least for a little while. A very worthy accomplishment for the criminal justice system as a whole.
Posted by CivilRights - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 8 hours, 27 minutes ago

Interesting tension here between surveillance cameras - civil rights - and this defendant’s acquittal. I have read that in London they are so ubiquitous (and more accepted) due to their decades long battles with IRA terrorism, that there are few if any outside areas where you may NOT be on camera. I even saw a “cops” show (o.k. maybe it was “Bobbies”) where they noticed a minor altercation and then tracked the perpetrator for blocks on cameras before apprehending him. While I personally am not in favor of such a system, it would be interesting to see the effect of such a system on POLICE behavior if they knew that THEIR actions were all being recorded as well. Anyone have any info on how dashboard cameras on patrol cars have influenced things such as patrolmen behavior or conviction rates?
Posted by John G. - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 8 hours, 24 minutes ago

I’m a law student half way through school (thankfully), and I honestly don’t get the uproar over this. The cops said that they followed the suspect and saw him toss an object away. Why does the fact that it took time to find the object prove that they lied? If they hadn’t seen him toss something, why would they have been looking for something, particularly in that area?

I’m reminded of the case where the cops gave the defendant the “Christian Burial” speech and he led them to where the shoes and blanket were supposed to be, but they spent hours looking but never finding them. That suspect was still convicted even though the cops spent hours searching entirely in vain for the evidence. Here, at least, the cops actually FOUND the evidence.

Granted, one officer telling another to ‘get creative’ isn’t the best example of sterling police work, but then again, that doesn’t imply outright lying. Every case, every piece of testimony, every article of evidence has colorable facts, and “get creative” can be a suggestion to merely make the facts as colorable against the defendant as possible - without lying about them.

This snippet provides enough detail to let people fly off the handle, but not enough detail for us to actually know all of the facts.
Posted by TSH - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 52 minutes ago

Clicking through to the LA Times story answers much of the controversy. The officers testified that defendant threw away a box, they saw it hit a dumpster and break open, and they picked up the cocaine just a few feet from defendant. They denied that it took anything like 20 minutes to find it, and denied making statements (like “be creative") shown on the video. These are pretty clearly lies. As to why the PD withheld the tape, the officers could have testifeid consistent with the tape if they knew it existed. The PD doesn’t have a deposition with which to cross-examine the officers, so had to lock in their testimony as inconsistent with the video before revealing it to the prosecution. Good for him.
Posted by Richard - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 44 minutes ago

I’m not condoning lying by the police, not sure the story gives us enough info on their lies, but everyday I put my car keys somewhere in my house, yet there are days it takes me a good 10 minutes or so to find them, so taking 20 minutes to find something someone indiscriminately tossed while running doesn’t seem by itself to constitute a lie. They must have testified that they found it immediately and hence the 20 minute search was inconsistent.
Posted by PF - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 34 minutes ago

John G.,

First, if you go to the LA Times link, the officers explicitly were asked if it took 20 minutes to find and they denied it. That they committed perjury doesn’t make me want to give them the benefit of the doubt on “get creative” - even if its ok to “creatively interpret” what you saw as long as you don’t outright lie. Which it isn’t.

The reason the 20 minutes matters on the ground, perjury aside, is connecting the cocaine to the guy. If the defendant throws it and its five feet from where he was, its pretty obvious it was his black object.

If, on the other hand, it takes you 20 minutes of rummaging around the scene to find a black object that was thrown, not carefully stashed somewhere, that dramatically increases your chances of it being somebody else’s black object - and gives you ample opportunity to plant it.

Think of it this way - if this was some minor thing, the prosecutor wouldn’t have admitted he didn’t have a case, and the judge wouldn’t have thrown it out.
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 32 minutes ago

The consensus so far seems to be that cops lie under oath all the time and aren’t caught at it nearly enough. If so, then the best thing about this story and its enormous publicity (it was front page, above the fold, in the L.A. times) is that any jury pool is less likely to believe police officers testifying at criminal trials.
Posted by Clay - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 24 minutes ago

How many other cases have these officers or their comrades “gotten creative” with?

That some people would defend cops committing perjury because “what’s the big deal?” appalls me. Such folks can’t really have gone to law school. Framing people - guilty or not - is not justice, is not due process, is not lawful, and is not consitutional.

If it is “no big deal” for a cop to commit perjury on a routine drug case, how in the world could you trust their testimony on a capital murder case, where the stakes are so much higher? This “win at all costs” mentality that government has is sick, sick, sick, and simply destroys the confidence Americans used to have in the criminal justice (and by reflection, civil justice) systems.

And we wonder why people hate lawyers?
Posted by N-lawyer - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes ago

Facts: According to LATimes, the DA asked the Judge to dismiss their case, she did not do it on her own. Also the DA asked that Judge find Alacon (the defendant) factually innocent, a huge request. Also the DA that was prosecuting the case said, “The videotape speaks for itself.”

We on the outside might never know all the facts, but having worked with DAs, I know it is a big deal to request that drug sales cases be dismissed when the defendant is a suspected gang member, and the cops found 12 bindles of coke.
Posted by N-lawyer - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 12 minutes ago

According to LATimes, defendant’s mom is the apartment manager where the video surveillance took place, and cops had arrested him weeks earlier for assault. If true, it might explain why the defense attorney hung on to the case. He wanted this case dismissed with some fanfare, not just a quiet sweeping under the rug. I know I might try to convince my client to wait until trial to spring a trap on the cops, in hopes that the publicity causes them to leave my client alone in the future.
Posted by Tropicana - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago

John G.,

As I read the article, the officer did NOT see the suspect toss ANYTHING. Had he seen it, they wouldn’t have spent 20 minutes searching for it. Cocaine doesn’t move itself. If you see someone toss it while running down an alley, there’s nowhere else for it to be.

In any event, you should keep in mind that this was surely not the first time that at least THOSE officers fabricated evidence. If you lived in an area where you knew the police did that, you might start to think that running from the police is not quite as suspicious as it might at first appear.

If you lived in the area and were familiar with M.O. of officers in the area, you would run too because innocent or guilty you know those officers will say whatever it takes to make you look guilty. At that point, you might want the jury and the court to acknowledge that the fact that you ran from the police does not make you guilty of possessing cocaine.

If you knew those officers and their M.O. and some guy came running up the alley toward you and your friends and you saw him toss cocaine in the alley, you and your friends would run like hell because if the cops caught you, you would no doubt be charged with conspiracy based on the officers’ saying whatever it took to make you look like you were in a conspiracy.

It’s easy to see nothing wrong with that sort of dishonesty and fraudulent activity on the part of the police if you feel like you could never possibly be in a position where the police would even have the opportunity to do so to you. However, I suggest you think back to college and law school where you surely had endless neighbors smoking marijuana (and most of you no doubt did so as well) or at least (in college) drinking underage.

Imagine a police officer deciding to be that “creative” upon discovering marijuana or alcohol (in college) in your dormitory. Imagine you’re at a party where they’re smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol underage… even if you never touched a drop or took a puff at that party… and that “creative” officer comes on the scene and arrests everyone claiming that he personally saw each one of you smoking marijuana or drinking underage.

-T
Posted by D - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 6 hours, 54 minutes ago

Unfortunately, the lying goes with the law and order mentality. These guys are scum and we need to do anything we can to put them away. It’s not all police but it’s definitely a problem. Rampart may have been scandelous, but there are new stories of Orange County Sheriff’’s Department making their own crack cocaine to sting drug buyers, and the same happens in Florida. Cop dope is not unique to Rampart unfortunately.
Posted by ed wood - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 6 hours, 33 minutes ago

The officers said the suspect ran. Judging from their other testimony, I am willing ot bet they lied about that too. I am amazed that lawyers and those who aspire to be lawyers have such little respect for the LAW - Rember - Law becomes before Order.
Posted by JG - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 5 hours, 37 minutes ago

To John G.

You should consider another line of work. Being a lawyer requires skillful use of logic. Your logic could not be more fallacious. In view of the false statements contradicted by the video tape, why would you believe anything these officers said?
Posted by Lionel Hutz - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 5 hours, 36 minutes ago

Officer testimony should be taken no more seriously than defendant testimony. Even most good cops (and I believe most are) lie to cover holes in their methods if they believe they have the bad guy.
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 5 hours, 1 minute ago

Lionel Hutz: That’s an explanation, not an excuse. Like anyone else, cops who lie under oath should be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for perjury.
Posted by Dixon - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 4 hours, 3 minutes ago

I’m an attorney who has, unfortunately, been on both sides of this thing. (See http://www.theagitator.com/2007/04/20/tales-of-a-dallas-poker-raid/ ). The War on Drugs has hopelessly corrupted our police forces. My situation greatly changed the way I thought about cops on a personal level. I thought my criminal procedure professors were anti-cop cranks until I saw the “system” first hand.
Posted by Chief - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 54 minutes ago

Several comments.
1. I deplore modern practice that tries to eliminate surprise at trial. I found that frequently only surprise could jar forth the truth. In this case a revelation of the tape before trial could well have resulted in some different “creative testimony”. The way this smart trial lawyer did it, all testimony of the arresting officers was effectively demolished.
2. Giving the tape to the DA before trial to secure a dismissal is not the same as an acquittal after the defendant has been put in jeopardy. The dismissed charge can be refilled, the acquittal is an absolute bar to prosecution.
3. Does somebody really think there is an ethical duty for a defense attorney to help a prosecutor win his case? Nobody ever helped me, nor did I expect them to do so.
4. There is a terrible pressure for officers to conclude what the truth is and then look for facts to substantiate it. A sloppy prosecutor can be embarased by going to trial with a case handled that way which collapses on him in court if the defense is competent. Just look at the Duke soccer team case which was well defended by competent lawyers and investigators. The sad part is Public Defender Offices are so often underfunded. Hooray for the alert Defender in LA.
Chief
Posted by TruthBTold - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 53 minutes ago

The sad reality is that the legal system not only allows but also encourages police officers to lie to Defendants in order to gather incriminating evidence. Police then feel entitled to take those lies to the next step by actually inventing evidence. The second problem is in “who” is permitted to be police officers. Clearly, these are not the sharpest tacks in the barrel. In fact, many law enforcement agencies intentionally target people BELOW certain IQ levels and aptitudes. This makes for a deadly combination.
Posted by DIxon - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 41 minutes ago

When I was arrested (see comment 30), it was filmed by Dallas undercover, as well as several camera crews for A&E’s “Dallaw Swat.” We subpeonaed tapes from Dallas as well as Granada Entertainment. We were told that none of the tapes existed. Then, when I showed for my exclusionary hearing, the cop was there to testify that she’d “watched the tapes last night.” It was maddening and unfair.
Posted by R.L. (2L) - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 27 minutes ago

This is why I love the Law! Spirited Civil Discussion. There will always be lies; I’m just glad to see a human being did not have to innocently go to jail because of them. Congrats to the PD. Good Work.
Posted by AC - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 12 minutes ago

@Civil Rights at # 15. I have worked as a sole prosecutor for two small towns (pop. 20,000). The first police force did not have dashboard mounted cameras the second did for their patrol officers.
I found the tapes (primarily in traffic situations) to be instrumental in prosecuting. If the cops said they swerved, then there it was on video. If the suspect said the cops were cussing at them, or had their hand on their gun throughout the entire traffic stop - then there was video and sound.
The protocol was that the cops turned their body mics on before approaching the suspect, advised the suspect that they were being recorded and their dashboard mounted cameras were not to be turned off. The videotapes were put into evidence on DUI cases and any other cases at the duty seargent’s discretion. The tapes cycled through on a 90 day rotation.
I once had a defendant swear, through an interpretor, that he spoke no english and therefore did not understand his rights. I located the tape and found the defendant speaking english as clear as day with the citing officer - it was a particuarly sweet moment.
In talking frankly with the officers - many of them admitted they were against it at first, felt it was very big brotherish and would somehow be used to criticize their job performance, how they spent their time on duty, etc. WIthin the first year ALL revised their initial concerns and completely embraced the concept. Suddenly citizen complaints about their tone, attitude or actions were being able to be refuted. Whatever they felt they “lost” because the camera was on them, they were 100% okay with once they saw how the tapes could also be used to defend them.
I highly reccomend dashboard cameras and body mics for patrol officers. It clarifies the obvious violations and allows me to concentrate my time on triaging the less obvious infractions.
Posted by Park - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 3 hours, 2 minutes ago

@Justin #9, sounds like you’re missing the logic part of your brain. As to your cocaine vs. nicotine “experience,” you’re seeing only the short-term. You need to open your eyes and look at the big picture. Do a little research and you’ll find that cigarette smoking does more harm in this country than cocaine use.

As for John G. #16, please tell me you are joking, because if you’re not, PLEASE QUIT LAW SCHOOL NOW. It’s sad that you would not have a more balanced and logical understanding of things, especially if you’ve been in law school for a while now. Your connection to the christian burial speech makes no sense. That case dealt with indirect interrogation of a suspect by making statements that are known by the officers to elicit an incriminating response, while in the LA case that we are discussing here involves faulty police work and perjury. Please open your eyes.
Posted by CivilRights - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

@ AC #35 - thanks for your response with your insights about dashboard cameras in patrol cars. My personal concerns about widespread use of cameras in public in general do not apply to such situations, which are exactly where they should be used - for the protection of both sides it would seem.
Posted by JG - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

To Lionel Hutz

The very idea that a cop can commit perjury and at the same time be a “good” cop is an inescapable dichotomy. How can you possibly reconcile these two concepts.?
Posted by BCA - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

I am a practicing lawyer and many years ago I served on a jury that heard a very similar case. On the stand the cop was a very impressive, clean-cut sharp young man who told his story of seeing the defendant drop some drugs as the cop was closing in. The defendant was a classic ne’er do well who looked like a street thug out of central casting. There was no videotape to contradict the cop and the defendant did not take the stand. Only the defendant’s mother testified and she did not seem that credible when she testified that she did not see him in possession of any drugs. We convicted that guy and he’s still in jail now. And so I read this story and I wonder. I just wonder.
Posted by Judge Jim Barlow - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 26 minutes ago

I love on board cameras., I tried a DWI case in New Braufels, Texas, where the officer asked the defendant to stand on one leg as part of the field test, and then was called back to the car to answer some other questions. The defendant stook like a stork for a minute and a half. The jury asked for a replay of the video and then promptly acquitted the defendant. The thing works both ways.
Posted by MMH - 3 months, 1 week, 4 days, 21 hours, 8 minutes ago

I work with Victor Acevedo, the Public Defender in this case, and am also a Public Defender in LA County. He had the video prior to the preliminary hearing and made a conscience decision to NOT turn it over. The reasons he did not turn it over to the DA are two-fold. First of all he had no legal obligation to turn the tape over to the DA. If he would have turned it over to the DA, yes the DA would have probably dismissed the case and no one would have ever heard about this case. The LAPD officers involved would still be on the streets fabricating evidence and attempting to get convictions by any means necessary. No one would have ever known that some LAPD officers still lie, fabricate and/or plant evidence and that Rampart was not an isolated incident. LAPD officers have been doing this for years and so far have only been caught a couple of times. I’m not saying all LAPD officers are rogue cops, because I know many cops who are very honest people, but the LAPD officers in this case and many other LAPD officers believe they are above the law. After the case was dismissed Victor spoke to the jurors and told them why the case was dismissed. (The judge did not inform the jurors why the case was dismissed) Some of the jurors told Victor that they believed the officers and if the case would have gone to the jury for deliberations, Victor’s client would have probably been convicted on the lies of those cops. Who knows how many times LAPD officers have gotten away with this type of illegal behavior.
Posted by Hadley v. Baxendalw - 3 months, 1 week, 4 days, 5 hours, 23 minutes ago

Looks like the Vince Lombardi school of justice at work
Posted by jimbo - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 21 hours, 27 minutes ago

This, my friends, is why you do not prosecute “throw downs.”

I recently had a poss of cocaine case in which the 4 time convicted felon was seen “making a distinct throwing motion” and, lo and behold, a baggie of a white powdery substance (FTP’ed as cocaine) was locate near where 4 timer was standing.

Any prosecutor willing to stake his reputation on such a BS possession charge deserves to get his ass handed to him.
Posted by John - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 7 hours, 8 minutes ago

Unfortunately, the “war on drugs” has corrupted people on both sides of the law. I am a 30+ year police officer and a recent law school graduate. I have seen the bad and the good on both sides of the bar. We need to take an long and realistic look at how we handle drug possession in this country, and I mean nicotine and alcohol as well as the controlled substances before we destroy too many more lives. The war is not winnable
Posted by Jim - 3 months, 6 days, 1 hour, 41 minutes ago

Perry Mason didn’t go to trial.
Posted by David Degner - 3 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 34 minutes ago

A cop lies, a dog bites a man. News? The more interesting story is the growing presence of surveillance cameras. The videos from those cameras typically help law enforcemnt. However, these cameras also catch the police lying. Many states take a DNA sample of all arrestees, and some states take a DNA sample of everyone pulled over for a traffic infraction. Bush listens in on your telephone calls. No one seems concerned that our privacy rights are quickly eroding. Orwell warned us, but we’re hell bent on a path of no return in order to “be safe.” I guess it’s all justifiable because we’re in an endless war to preserve our oil burning lifestyle. PS. I love Big Brother. Really.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Evidence