Judge Orders Release of SIS Shooting Transcripts

A Los Angeles federal judge has issued an unusual decision, ordering disclosure of grand jury transcripts to plaintiffs in a civil rights case brought against the LAPD’s controversial Special Investigations Section.

In a case involving several shootings by SIS officers in Sunland and Northridge, U.S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts issued the order at the request of Venice lawyer Stephen Yagman, after reviewing the grand jury transcripts in his chambers.

Yagman contended that he needed to see the transcripts--almost always kept secret--to determine if there were discrepancies between what SIS officers said in public testimony in an earlier civil rights case against them and what they told a federal grand jury behind closed doors.

“I had the suspicion that they [the officers] had said things under oath that were inconsistent with one another,” Yagman said.

Both the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney’s office opposed release of the transcripts.

Attorney Skip Miller, who is representing some city officials, said he is “evaluating and studying” the judge’s ruling, but declined further comment.

“It’s clear from Judge Lett’s past rulings that he is biased against the SIS,” said one City Hall official.

Earlier this year, Letts issued another unusual ruling in the SIS cases, ordering a large number of public officials, including the mayor and the entire City Council, to appear in his courtroom to participate in a settlement conference. He later withdrew that order.

Letts said in his order, made public Tuesday, that “disclosure of the transcripts is necessary to avoid possible injustice” in several pending cases Yagman has filed against SIS officers.

Letts cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision that provides guidelines on when normally secret grand jury transcripts should be made available to parties in a civil case.

Letts added that he had “ascertained that there is a substantial likelihood that the grand jury transcripts contain testimony that will be admissible at trial to prove [the officers’] course of conduct and for impeachment purposes”-- for showing discrepancies in testimony given at different times.

“The need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy. The transcripts are relevant and material to plaintiffs’ case and the interests of justice require their disclosure.”

Letts ordered the entire transcripts turned over to Yagman under seal, saying it would not be in the interest of justice to provide only exerpts. The judge emphasized that the contents may not be passed on to anyone else, including news reporters, under threat of being declared in contempt of court.

The SIS has been criticized by those who contend that its officers are assigned to follow known criminals until they commit a crime, passing up opportunities to prevent the crimes so that the officers have material for a stronger court case or can provoke an opportunity to shoot them. Defenders contend the SIS officers engage in frequent gun battles because of the violent nature of the suspects they are assigned to arrest, and that their mission to remove the most dangerous criminals from the streets prevents many other crimes from being committed.

Yagman said Letts’ decision arose from the Feb. 12, 1990 robbery of a McDonalds in Sunland. SIS officers, who had been watching the robbery from outside the restaurant, shot and killed three men in a getaway car and seriously wounded a fourth.

The officers said the robbers pointed guns at them. Recovered weapons turned out to be air pistols.

In March, 1992, in a trial before Letts, a federal jury ruled that the officers had violated the civil rights of the gunmen. The jury awarded punitive damages against eight officers and then-Police Chief Daryl Gates.

Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney’s office conducted its own investigation of the SIS officers but decided against filing charges.

Yagman said that during a pending civil rights case against the same officers “it dawned on me that the grand jury proceedings” might show inconsistencies between the officers’ statement in the federal probe and in the civil trial. So he filed the motion that led to the ruling.

Yagman has five lawsuits pending against SIS officers, which Letts has consolidated into one case.

Two of the cases stem from a June 26, 1995 Newbury Park holdup in which one robber was killed and another, Robert Cunningham, was seriously wounded. Cunningham is serving a lengthy prison sentence.

The other three cases stem from a Feb. 25, 1997 robbery at a Northridge bar in which three of the four occupants of the getaway car were killed. The fourth man was subsequently arrested and is currently in jail. Yagman also represents a bystander who was shot as he hid behind a bush in the area while the officers were pursuing the robbers.

Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson said Letts’ order was unusual, though not unprecedented.

“I have had cases where a court ordered release of grand jury transcripts that related to a civil proceeding,” said Levenson, a former federal prosecutor. But she added that the cases “where I’ve had it happen didn’t involve impeachment. Witnesses were no longer available.”

“The law requires a particularized need such as unavailability of evidence from another source and, the importance of the evidence to the civil proceeding, balanced against the reasons for continued secrecy.”

She said what makes Letts’ order even more unusual is its breadth, referring to the fact that the judge ordered the entire transcript released to Yagman.