Dershowitz on Police Perjury

* Re “Cops Usually Don’t Commit Perjury Without a Wink from Higher Up,” Commentary, Nov. 2:

The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. Alan Dershowitz and the “Dream Team” won an acquittal largely based on the jury’s acceptance of a conspiracy theory involving the LAPD’s framing of O.J. Simpson. He writes of systematic, chronic conspiracies between police and district attorneys nationwide, yet offers no proof. He hopes the mere mention of supposed law enforcement conspiracies will work the same magic on the public that worked so well on the Simpson jury.

He cites the lack of perjury prosecutions against policemen as proof of this conspiracy, yet he fully knows the rarity of such prosecutions against anyone, not just policemen. Mark Fuhrman will most likely not be prosecuted because his lying would not appear to be material to the case, and materiality must be shown to secure a perjury conviction. Dershowitz also lays blame on Marcia Clark for embracing an “evidence planter,” but there is no evidence whatsoever that Fuhrman planted any evidence in this case or any other.

Shame on Dershowitz for discrediting the honest policemen and prosecutors nationwide who work diligently and fairly to convict those guilty of crimes against innocent people. He is not only a sore winner, but a paranoid whining with false accusations and unproven claims.

JOE PONDER

San Clemente

* Although I have been a criminal defense attorney for 28 years, I do not always agree with Dershowitz. However, Dershowitz is absolutely right-on when he states that police perjury, by no means a rare phenomenon, quite often occurs with the tacit, if not explicit, assent of prosecutors. However, he did not go far enough in making his point, which is surprising for him.

Equally complicit are the all too many judges who should know better, yet repeatedly blind their eyes to obvious false police testimony. This is especially true in motions to suppress evidence, where disbelieving police testimony concerning whether the evidence was lawfully seized often causes the case to be dismissed.

The reasons that judges abdicate their responsibilities, I suggest, are the fear of the wrath of both the police and the prosecutor, and political pressure not to appear anti-police. The real rarity is the judge who disbelieves police testimony--and says so on the record. All too often the well-intentioned judge will dissemble and state another reason to justify a ruling, thereby missing the critical opportunity to deliver the correct message to the offending police officer and thereby to other officers.

When the day comes that judges will honestly evaluate police testimony, then more defendants will waive trial by jury, thereby relieving our disastrous court congestion (one of the major causes of plea bargaining, a much-criticized aspect of the criminal justice system) and allowing civil cases to speedily come to trial.

HOWARD R. PRICE

Beverly Hills

* Dershowitz’s hypocrisy is evident in criticizing Clark for “reaping her reward in the form of a seven-figure book contract,” for her role in the Simpson trial. He, too, has reaped a reward by authoring books, his fame based on his defense of such notorious figures as Claus Von Bulow and Mike Tyson.

I am looking forward to reading Clark’s book. Her efforts were tremendous, and she deserves whatever the publishing company will pay.

KATHY SCHENK

Laguna Beach