Officers Convicted in Rampart Case File for New Trial

Three Los Angeles police officers who were convicted of framing gang members filed motions Monday seeking to overturn by Christmas the first convictions in the investigation of LAPD corruption.

Sgts. Edward Ortiz and Paul Liddy and Officer Michael Buchanan say they deserve new trials based on jury misconduct and a computer error.

The computer error, which exaggerated the severity of injuries the officers said they suffered when hit by gang members, seems to be the defense’s best hope of a new trial. Superior Court Judge Jacqueline A. Connor has indicated that she has serious concerns about the error. She plans to rule on the jury misconduct and computer error after a Dec. 21 hearing.

In Monday’s filings, defense attorneys included affidavits from five jurors to bolster their charges that jurors could not agree on the substantial point of the prosecution’s case--that the officers concocted a story that were struck by a truck driven by gang members.

Instead, the five jurors suggested that the jury convicted the officers after coming to an agreement that the officers did not suffer great bodily injury. Thus, they said they felt the officers had exaggerated the incident.

However, the officers never said they suffered great bodily harm. A computer report incorrectly said that they had.

The report should have said they were victims of an assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. The error was not caught until days after the Nov. 15 verdict.

“Some jurors felt that . . . [the] truck never struck the officers. Some of the jurors felt that the truck struck the officers but that the report concerning the degree of the resultant injuries sustained by the offices was exaggerated. The jurors then discussed for many hours the issue of great bodily injury, “ according to one affidavit.

Another juror said: “Some of the jurors stated that since the officers had sustained only skinned knees and twisted ankles and they were able to walk around for many hours after the alleged accident, there was no great bodily injury,” another affidavit said.

Yet another juror said if the language had been different on the report it “would have made a difference during jury deliberations.”

The defense is also continuing to pursue its allegations of jury misconduct. An alternate says that jury foreman Victor Flores prejudged the defendants.

The alternate has told the judge that Flores told her and another alternate that he believed the officers were guilty. Flores and the other alternate say they don’t remember such a conversation.