Heed Judge Lester’s Words on Penn Trial

Superior Court Judge J. Morgan Lester’s decision to speak out about police handling of the Sagon Penn case may have been unorthodox, but it was courageous, and his message should be listened to carefully.

In essence, Lester said that, as an impartial observer of the six-month-long second Penn trial, it was clear to him that it was the police officers, not Penn, who began the violence on March 31, 1985, that led to an officer being killed and two other people being wounded. He also said some police witnesses during the trial had not told the whole truth, and he criticized the department for having an evidentiary photograph altered.

Lester’s remarks were made in an interview after the trial ended in acquittal on the major charges and after Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller had announced that he would ask for dismissal of the remaining charges. So there were no further legal proceedings to be prejudiced by the judge’s comments.

The statements made in The Times’ interview immediately created controversy, in part, we suspect, because the judge voiced some views that many people don’t want to hear. But Lester speaks from a unique perspective on this case, and what he has to say should not be overshadowed by a tangential debate over whether he was right to speak out.

To begin with, Lester accused the police of misconduct in their handling of Penn at the time of the incident and in their later testimony. He spoke of the department’s “zeal to get Mr. Penn at all cost” and of the “code of silence” adhered to by some police witnesses.

Further, Lester leveled criticism at Police Chief Bill Kolender for saying after the verdicts that “there was no evidence of misconduct” by Police Agent Donovan Jacobs, who first stopped the pickup truck Penn was driving and later was shot and wounded by Penn. “There’s too many witnesses, who didn’t even know Mr. Penn, talking about the beating taking place on the ground for the department to ignore the reality of what was going on,” Lester said.

One of Lester’s most important points was addressed to the public, the majority of whom he believes still do not understand how much devastating testimony there was against the police. “I have run into people who want to make the conclusion that there is a dead officer and someone has to pay,” he said. “They are almost happy to be ignorant of the real details of what was going on.”

Lester is confronting many of the prejudices that can be found in this and any community, including those based on race, age and blind faith in the police. He is reminding us that, while the truth can hurt, it remains the best standard by which to set one’s opinions.

It should be noted that these unusual comments from a trial judge come from a Deukmejian appointee and former prosecutor who had received praise from both sides for his handling of the trial. In response to Lester’s accusations, Miller and Kolender have asked California Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp to investigate the police handling of the case, and he has agreed.

Kolender had considered asking the state Commission on Judicial Performance to investigate Lester for making his remarks. But after a meeting Friday with City Manager John Lockwood and City Atty. John Witt, he decided there is no legal basis for making a formal complaint. That decision was wise. It is not Judge Lester who needs to come under further scrutiny; it is those in the Police Department who may be guilty of brutality, perjury and altering evidence.