L.A. Bid to Bar Judge From Police Suits Fails

Los Angeles city officials Tuesday lost their bid to bar a federal court judge, who they allege is biased, from handling lawsuits against the LAPD’s elite undercover squad.

The legal setback for city officials means that U.S. District Court Judge J. Spencer Letts will continue hearing cases against the LAPD’s controversial Special Investigations Section.

Attorneys for the City Council, Mayor Richard Riordan and other city leaders sought to have Letts removed from the cases, contending that he is overly sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ arguments that the unit operates as a kind of “death squad” and should be disbanded.

As evidence of the judge’s alleged partiality, attorneys for the city filed a recusal motion three weeks ago quoting recent rulings and conversations in which Letts allegedly said all police officers lie.

Judge Stephen V. Wilson, who ruled on the motion, rejected the city’s argument, saying that the petition was meritless and “untimely,” because the most recent statement cited by the city was delivered five months ago and several of the cases are set for trial next month.

“Defendants’ recusal motion thus appears to be an attempt to delay trial,” Wilson stated in his 14-page ruling.

When the city’s attorneys filed the motion, legal experts called the maneuver a high-stakes gamble that rarely succeeds and often ends up making the trial judge hostile to their advocacy. They said such motions usually are made by desperate litigants as a last resort.

“It’s not a big surprise,” said Laurie Levenson, a former prosecutor and now on the staff of Loyola Law School. “They [city officials] didn’t have a lot to lose. The judge wasn’t ruling in their favor to begin with. They’ll just have to keep moving ahead and fighting.”

Letts is handling several lawsuits stemming from two SIS incidents. Two cases relate to a June 1995 holdup in Newbury Park in which one robber was killed and another, a convicted murderer--now the lead plaintiff--was seriously wounded. Four cases stem from a February 1997 armed robbery at a Northridge bar and a car chase that left three of four occupants of the getaway car dead and one bystander wounded.

“The motion was a sleazy attempt . . . to delay the trial,” said attorney Stephen Yagman, who is representing the plaintiffs. “Judge Wilson picked up on that, said as much and denied the motion.”

Attorney Skip Miller, who filed the motion on behalf of the city officials, was in trial on another matter and had not seen the ruling Tuesday. He declined to comment. Deputy City Atty. Cory Brente called the decision a “disappointment.”

One City Hall official, close to the settlement negotiations, however, said: “We still think the plaintiffs’ attorney is wearing a black robe.”

The recent recusal motion was the second time that city attorneys have tried to prevent Letts from presiding over the cases. The first attempt failed two years ago, attorneys said.

In the city’s last motion, attorneys stated that Letts recently told the mayor of Torrance that “police officers always lie. The officers who are good at lying get away with it, and the ones who aren’t get caught.” Wilson suggested that those comments may have been taken out of context.

The city’s attorneys also contended that Letts maintains that all police officers, even good ones, “adhere to a code of silence.” Moreover, they accused the judge of being on a mission to reform SIS.

Wilson, however, said “Letts’ conduct as described in defendants’ motion, does not require recusal. . . . A reasonable observer, with knowledge of the facts and circumstances of this case, would not reasonably question Letts’ impartiality.”