Judge Rejects Plea Deal That Angered Police

Over the objections of both the defense and the prosecution, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Tuesday rejected a controversial plea agreement that would have allowed a man accused of shooting at two police officers to avoid prison and instead serve nine months in jail.

As a result, Gilberto Romero will appear today for a preliminary hearing on charges of assault on a police officer.

Judge Michael A. Tynan said his decision was based on an unfavorable Probation Department report on Romero, 18, who would have been under the jurisdiction of that department for three years after his jail stint.

But Deputy Dist. Atty. Kelly Chun raised the point that last week’s intense media attention to the plea bargain--and ensuing public and police reaction--might have played a part in the judge’s decision.

“I realize that there has been some publicity [about this case],” Chun told Tynan. Chun, who helped broker the original deal, also said the news reports had been misleading.

Tynan announced his decision to set aside Gilberto Romero’s proposed sentence before hearing from either side or the Los Angeles Police Department heavyweights gathered to oppose the arrangement.

LAPD Officers Raul Pedroza and Andy Aguayo of the Northeast division have said in previous statements that they were responding to a complaint of gang activity near Avenue 52 and Marmion Way when the young man fired six shots from a .22-caliber pistol in their direction. At the time, the officers said, their backs were turned.

Romero allegedly ran off and was arrested later trying to climb out of a building. His gun was also found there, the officers said.

In a Times story last week, details of the plea bargain infuriated police patrol officers and brass alike, with everyone from Chief Willie L. Williams to officer on the beat complaining about the arrangement.

Williams sent his chief of staff, Assistant Chief Ronald Banks, to the court to speak against the agreement.

The Police Department and the court said they had received phone calls and faxes from outraged members of the public.

“The support we’ve felt from the public has been 100%,” Pedroza said after the hearing. “It makes us feel excellent.”

After the outcry, even Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti spoke against the agreement--and, by extension, his underlings--asking for an immediate review of the case.

On Tuesday, after Tynan’s ruling, Garcetti said that although he respected the deputy attorneys who brokered the deal, he concurred with the judge’s decision.

“Whenever there are allegations of shots being fired at a police officer, I believe the district attorney’s office should do all it can to see that the alleged shooter is sent to state prison,” Garcetti said in a prepared statement. “In setting aside the plea, the court expressed its belief that this was an honest decision and simply disagreed.”

Chun earlier told the court that counter to media reports, the case was filed as an assault on a peace officer--not, she said, as a charge of attempted murder of a police officer that was later “knocked down” as part of a plea bargain.

Chun said the harsher charge was not an option in the current case for a variety of reasons, including the difficulties in identifying the shooter; a very young, frightened witness; Romero’s clean record, and a lack of physical evidence gathered at the scene.

“[The agreement] was done with no intent in any way to undervalue the life of a police officer,” Chun said.

Defense attorney Lou Spinelli asked to no avail that the judge reconsider his decision.

“I’m disappointed that the court is going to disturb what was a fair result,” Spinelli said. “The result was appropriate and just.”

Outside the Criminal Courts Building, Banks, flanked by the uniformed Aguayo and Pedroza, said he supported the judge’s decision to consider more than the plea recommendation.

“Naturally I’m very pleased on behalf of myself, the department and the officers,” Banks said.