Take a Giant Step to Right Rampart Wrongs

How many innocent people are imprisoned because of false testimony by Los Angeles police officers? Officers in the Rampart Division’s CRASH anti-gang unit now are known to have planted evidence and perjured themselves to gain convictions. Adequate steps must be taken immediately to identify those individuals who might have been convicted or persuaded to plead guilty because of police corruption. Unfortunately, the actions taken so far seem woefully insufficient.

There can be no doubt that the burden is on the County of Los Angeles and the district attorney’s office to ensure that no person remains in custody because of police wrongdoing. Nothing is more abhorrent in a society that believes in the rule of law than innocent people being imprisoned because of police officers lying and planting evidence. It is horrifying to know that there are people in prison, with every aspect of their lives in shambles, solely because of lies by police officers.

The task is to review every case in which police misconduct might have caused a wrongful conviction or guilty plea. Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti has stated that more than 3,000 cases will need to be reviewed. Garcetti did not indicate what is included in this number, but it is essential that reviewed cases include both those in which there was a trial and conviction and those in which there was a guilty plea. Already, it has been documented that some innocent individuals pleaded guilty in the face of false accusations and evidence rather than risk a trial and a much longer sentence.

The review must be conducted in a manner that provides assurance that every case receives a careful and unbiased analysis. Unfortunately, having the district attorney conduct the review is not sufficient. Although Garcetti has been aggressive in dealing with allegations, his is the office that prosecuted the cases. Above all, the D.A.’s office exists to put criminals in prison. So there is reason for concern when it is asked to take steps to release the same individuals. At the very least, leaving the review to the D.A.’s office cannot provide the essential appearance of independence.

Nor can defendants do this on their own. Under California law, a criminal defendant has access to prosecutors’ files only by showing with “concrete information” that there was wrongdoing in the case. In other words, generally the defendant would need access to the file in order to generate the information necessary to gain access to the file.

An independent task force needs to be created immediately to ensure unbiased review of all the possibly tainted cases. It should be composed of prosecutors, defense lawyers and others with experience in the criminal justice system. Ideally, a former judge could chair it. The group, which should be relatively small, would have the important responsibility of carefully reviewing each case to assess whether it was tainted by police wrongdoing.

This will be a time-consuming, burdensome and expensive task. There are more than 800 cases involving just former LAPD Officer Rafael Perez, who has been convicted of cocaine theft and is assisting authorities under a grant of immunity. Moreover, each new revelation expands the scope of needed review. The figure of 3,000 cases provided by Garcetti could be many times that number.

County supervisors should immediately appropriate funds needed for this review and, together with the D.A., create the independent task force. At the same time, it must be recognized that even the most independent and best-intentioned task force may not catch every tainted conviction or guilty plea. The prosecutor’s office must cooperate with criminal defense attorneys and criminal defendants in obtaining access to files so that they have the chance to demonstrate whether they were wrongfully convicted.

Each of us in Los Angeles must act as if we have a brother or a sister or a parent or a child sitting in prison as a result of Perez or his corrupt colleagues planting evidence. If it was our loved one behind bars, we would demand an independent review. No less should be deemed acceptable.