Verdict Against SIS Officers

On April 9, The Times published three letters to the editor on the subject of a federal court jury’s March 30 verdict against nine LAPD Special Investigation Section officers and Police Chief Daryl Gates, by which the jury expressed its findings that the officers had killed three robbers of a McDonald’s and wounded seriously a fourth, and that Gates was responsible for the deaths.

Understandably, all three writers were unhappy with the verdict, and the stated basis for their anger was that robbers are bad, police are picked on, and an award of attorneys’ fees to the robbers lawyers will encourage other attorneys to pursue such lawsuits. The concerns are well-taken. First, nice folk do not commit robberies. But, those who commit robberies have a right, in this country, to due process of law. That includes an appropriate arrest, a fair trial and then a sentence by a judge, if there is a guilty verdict. Due process eschews vigilante justice, or executions by police. That is what happened here.

Second, police, too, are entitled to due process. That due process includes provision of an attorney at no cost to them, a right to confront their accusers, and the right to have representatives of their community--a jury--decide who is right and who is wrong, and what the result is to be. In this case, the police and Gates all had their due process; and the jury found that none of them had given any due process to the robbers: Indeed, the jury found that the police and Gates deprived the robbers of due process. That is the reason the jury found against the police and Gates. That is the way in which our system of justice is supposed to function.

Third, what all of the writers fail to mention--and what one does mention rhetorically when he says, “Does the jury really believe that anyone but the taxpayers will pay the jury awards and attorney Stephen Yagman’s fee?”--is that taxpayers usually bear the burden of police misconduct: both as direct victims and as indemnifiers of police against whom verdicts are rendered. None of the writers mentions one very important fact: The jury unanimously decided that it wanted both the nine errant officers and Gates to pay their own damages.

The taxpayers do not have to pay these damages. The plaintiffs do not want the taxpayers to pay these damages. The jury does not want the taxpayers to pay these damages. Only if the officers and Gates request that the taxpayers pay the punitive damages, and the City Council approves that request by a majority of eight votes, and the mayor concurs with the council, can the taxpayers pay those damages.

In 1976, Congress passed a law to encourage attorneys who previously refused to take on civil rights cases to take such cases. The law provides that the loser in a civil rights case must pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees. Without that law, virtually no civil rights cases would be brought.

STEPHEN YAGMAN

Venice