Acquittal of Chiefs Brings Speculation on What’s to Come

For Police Chief Bob J. Talbert and Deputy Chief Edward D. Sampson, last week marked the end of a long, painful and personal ordeal.

For the city’s beleaguered police department, however, the chiefs’ acquittal on a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice may have been only the beginning of yet another chapter in a long tale of strife and confrontation.

The trial of Corona’s two highest-ranking police officers was the culmination of more than a year of bitter, often public, conflict between members of the Corona Police Department and their top leadership.

The internal acrimony was most evident in a five-day walkout by Corona police patrol officers, sergeants and lieutenants in November, 1983, an overwhelming vote of “no confidence” in the chiefs by their subordinates last summer, and a list of 18 complaints about police management they brought to the City Council last July.

Those complaints included the charge that led to the chiefs’ indictment and trial for conspiring to delete material information from a police report.

Opinions Offered

Should either Talbert or Sampson now choose to return to his post, city officials concede, the old wounds would almost certainly be reopened.

“I think it would be fatuous to say there wouldn’t be any problems,” said James Wheaton, Corona city manager. “But with everyone pulling together for the good of the department, there is no reason they could not perform well.”

City officials have suggested professional counseling may be necessary to hold the police department together, should either Talbert or Sampson return to duty.

“They certainly can’t go back to work without some very strong influence from outside,” said Bill Garrett, deputy city manager.

Neither Talbert nor Sampson has announced when, or whether, he will return to work. Both, in fact, have notified city officials that they will take some time before making a decision.

Decisions Awaited

Both were receiving their full salaries while on administrative leave of absence, from the time of their indictment last August until their acquittal last Wednesday.

“Bob is on vacation and probably will be for the rest of the month,” Wheaton said. “I frankly do not expect that he will take that long to tell us what he is going to do.”

If Talbert returns, the department will have to cope not only with lingering hostility between him and his subordinates but also with a perception that Talbert “would just be a short-termer,” Garrett said.

Talbert, 57, has been a member of the Corona Police Department for 27 years. He will be eligible for a full pension--equal to 75% of his salary--in August, 1986, Garrett said.

Were Talbert to choose early retirement immediately, he would receive a pension equal to about 73% of his salary, Wheaton said. Corona police officers must retire at age 60, Garrett noted.

Disability Request Filed

Sampson also informed city officials that he will take some additional time off, but he did not specify a date of return, Garrett said.

Sampson, 43, is a 19 1/2-year veteran of the force. Shortly after he was indicted last year, the deputy chief filed a stress-disability request with the city, which included a physician’s statement that he was unable to continue working, Garrett said.

The deputy chief cannot return to work until a doctor certifies he is able. He could remain on paid leave for at least another year, Garrett said.

Sampson also could seek a disability retirement, Garrett said. “The ball is essentially in his court now.”

Most Corona police officers--and officials of their union--refused to comment on either the chiefs’ acquittal or the ramifications of their possible return.

Officers Have no Comment

“We are not going to make any comment on any reaction” to last week’s verdict, said Detective Les Scott, president of the Corona Police Officers Assn. “We are not going to make any comment, period.”

“The association doesn’t feel there is any need to comment,” added Lt. Sam Spiegel, vice president of the group and one of four Corona police officers who testified against the chiefs. (Former officers also testified against the chiefs.)

Those officers who did speak to a reporter, on the condition that their names not be printed, generally said they will wait to see what happens before before making any judgments about what might happen if the chiefs return.

“I have my job to do; other people have their jobs to do,” one officer said. “Hopefully, most other people feel the same way. . . .

“There really shouldn’t be any problems,” the officer said. “We’ll go on doing our jobs.”

‘It Was a Mutiny’

One officer was less optimistic, however, saying that working in the Corona Police Department has been “like being in an abusive family. . . . The (1983) strike was not a strike. It was a mutiny.”

The Grand Jury indictment against Talbert and Sampson charged that they had ordered or tried to persuade three sergeants to remove from an accident report references to tree branches that may have obscured a stop sign and to approve the altered report.

Omitting that fact, Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin Ruddy had argued, hindered both the defense and prosecution in their analysis and handling of the case against Claude Daniel Hinson, an allegedly drunk driver who ran the stop sign at high speed and struck another car.

Talbert and Sampson wanted mention of the obstruction left out of the report, present and former Corona police officers testified at the chiefs’ trial, to protect the city from civil liability for the accident.

Rumors of an impending purge of “disloyal” police officers who testified against the chiefs have been circulating in Corona. And a local newspaper said this week in an editorial that the City Council “must rid the department of the element that left us unprotected for a week and has divided us ever since.”

Disciplinary Action Possible

The city cannot punish police officers for the 1983 strike, Garrett said, because the City Council effectively granted them amnesty for that action.

Neither Garrett nor City Manager Wheaton, however, would rule out disciplinary action against officers whose actions against the chiefs was “inappropriate.”

“The question of any disciplinary action will have to be evaluated by the deputy city manager, the personnel office and, certainly, the city attorney’s office before any action is taken,” Wheaton said.

Following an investigation and evaluation of any alleged misconduct, Wheaton would decide what disciplinary action to take, he said.

“I’m not investigating any police officers at this time,” Garrett said. “. . . I have not decided if there is even anything for me to consider.”

Garrett will take “several weeks . . . (to) reflect on the last year to year-and-a-half to see if some of the incidences may have been inappropriate,” he said. “I haven’t really begun to make that analysis.”