Added Witnesses May Extend Probe of Taped Beating

Authorities investigating the beating of Mexican citizens by two Riverside County sheriff’s deputies have uncovered numerous witnesses who say they observed parts of the high-speed chase that ended with television cameras videotaping the deputies as they struck at least two suspected illegal immigrants.

According to sources close to the investigation, the unexpectedly large number of witnesses--the total now tops 40--has forced officials to revise their estimates of how long the probe will take. Once expected to take just a few weeks, the inquiry now is not likely to be concluded until May at the earliest.

Nora Manella, U.S. attorney for the Central District, declined to comment on timing or witnesses, but said the investigation, which is being jointly handled by the FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, was moving forward.

“We think a combined local and federal investigation is the most effective and efficient approach,” said Manella, whose office will consult with the Los Angeles County district attorney before deciding which, if either, will bring criminal charges against Riverside County Deputies Tracy Watson and Kurt Franklin. Both deputies have been suspended with pay while the criminal investigations and a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department internal affairs probe are underway.

For the moment, Manella said, both prosecutorial offices are keeping their options open and waiting for investigative materials before deciding whether any federal or state charges are warranted.

As investigators from the FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department press forward, their witnesses are essentially of three different kinds, sources said: passengers who were riding in the truck during the 80-mile, high-speed pursuit; motorists who saw the chase on the highway or who became involved in it as the pickup truck raced from authorities; and law enforcement officers, principally CHP Officer Marco DeGennaro, who was on hand with a tape recorder when the chase ended.

DeGennaro already has been interviewed several times, and his tape-recording has emerged as an important piece of evidence in the case. Meanwhile, investigators have begun the laborious task of debriefing motorists who saw parts of the chase, some of whom have reported that they believed the truck was recklessly avoiding police and that passengers in the truck bed appeared to be throwing objects to deter their pursuers.

John Barnett, the lawyer for Franklin, said some witnesses also have called his office to say they saw people hurling objects from the truck, an allegation that the immigrants have denied. Barnett said he did not know whether those witnesses had been interviewed by authorities.

Dan Stormer--one of the lawyers representing Alicia Sotero Vasquez, who can be seen in the videotape being yanked by the hair and struck at least once--said he had no information to suggest that any of the truck passengers threw anything from the bed of the moving vehicle. “At worst,” he said, “there may have been pieces of the canopy flying off.”

Still, the emergence of witnesses affected by the chase could help the defense of Franklin and Watson, whose lawyers have argued that their actions were a reasonable response to a dangerous and fast-unfolding situation. If Franklin and Watson had reason to believe the suspects were violent, their lawyers say, that could show that they were trying to be cautious in handling a dangerous situation, not that they were intentionally using excessive force.

But some legal experts warned that even if the investigation reveals that the immigrants and the driver of the truck were reckless or worse, any provocation had ceased by the time the pursuit had ended and the truck had pulled to the side of the highway.

“As a legal matter, the question is not whether they [the immigrants] were doing something illegal in the recent past,” said Steven D. Clymer, a Cornell University law professor who prosecuted the Rodney G. King civil rights case. “The question is whether they posed an immediate threat to the officers.”

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, agreed, noting that police are entitled to use their batons only when suspects are resisting and may not do so to punish suspects for their past behavior. Federal civil rights laws make it a crime for any officer to intentionally use unreasonable force.

Barnett, however, said witnesses who come forward to say that they saw cars being rammed or objects being thrown from the truck will help make clear that his client and Watson were right to treat the suspects as dangerous felons.

“To make the argument that once they’ve stopped their dangerous conduct the danger ceases, that’s not the case,” said Barnett, who defended one of the officers in the King case during the state trial of that incident. “These people are dangerous until they are under arrest.”

According to Barnett, any evidence that the passengers of the truck were endangering motorists during the police pursuit would help bolster his contention that the force used against them was reasonable and justified because it would demonstrate that the officers believed they were confronting violent suspects.

As an example, he said, officers trying to pull over a suspect for speeding might perceive one level of threat.

“But if suspects are misbehaving in a much greater way, intentionally and gratuitously inflicting violence on others . . . that conduct heightens the concerns of the deputies,” Barnett said. “They have to treat them as more likely to do violence if they know these people already have done violence.”

Harland W. Braun, another veteran of the King trials and now the lawyer for DeGennaro, echoed Barnett’s position.

“It’s critical to show bad conduct,” Braun said, “because that shows the state of mind of the deputies. It lets you understand what they perceived.”

Stormer dismissed that reasoning.

“There is absolutely no conduct . . . by the people in that truck that would allow for the brutal actions of the police officers,” he said. “Under the facts of this case, even as the police describe them, there is absolutely no excuse for their behavior.”

Other legal experts said there are practical as well as legal considerations for the authorities reviewing the circumstances of the pursuit. If witnesses come forward to say that they believe passengers in the truck were creating a danger on the highway, it will be important to determine whether those actions occurred near the beginning of the chase or closer to the end.

Illegal or dangerous conduct near the beginning of the chase, they said, might do little to justify actions by the deputies as much as an hour later. DeGennaro, for instance, told investigators that he did not see any evidence of the passengers throwing objects, but he joined the pursuit just moments before it concluded.

Similarly, two immigrants who were pictured being struck by deputies appeared to exit the cab of the pickup truck. If that was the case, then evidence raising questions about the conduct of the passengers riding in the bed of the pickup might be less helpful to the deputies, even if witnesses say they did see objects thrown at cars by those people.

No matter what, said Clymer, the issue of the immigrants’ conduct almost surely will be raised if Franklin and Watson are charged with a crime. King’s behavior and refusal to obey some police orders was a major issue during both trials of the LAPD officers charged with beating him, and a similar defense certainly would be part of this case, he said.

The tactic, Clymer said, is simple: “Smear the victims as much as possible.”