Detective Under Scrutiny in More Cases

A veteran LAPD detective already under investigation for allegedly coercing false testimony from a witness in a murder case is under additional scrutiny for his role in two other investigations, according to police records, legal documents and interviews with key officials.

Det. John Curiel, who earlier this year provided admittedly false testimony in a murder case that has since been dismissed, was accused by a deputy district attorney of having “selective amnesia” on the witness stand in a case she was prosecuting.

The prosecutor, Teri Hutchison, was so disturbed by Curiel’s performance on the stand that she took the rare step of filing a formal complaint against the Rampart Division detective.

In addition, another deputy district attorney last week dismissed the charges in a second murder case in which Curiel was the investigating officer. In that case, one of two eyewitnesses denied making statements attributed to her in Curiel’s report and in the detective’s sworn testimony in a hearing in juvenile court.

Although the allegations of misconduct are neither the first nor the most serious under investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department, they call into question the department’s handling of officers whose credibility has been challenged. Curiel has previously given false testimony--which he says was an accident--and yet the LAPD transferred him to another job that requires him to testify.

Claim of Confusion on Interviews

Curiel, who declined to comment for this article, initially came under fire in March after testifying that he had interviewed a murder victim’s relatives and viewed the dead man’s body. Police Department records showed that actually he was on vacation at the time. He later acknowledged that his testimony was false but said he had merely confused two cases.

After a complaint by prosecutors in that case, the detective was transferred from homicide to auto theft. There, he has continued to investigate cases and testify.

On Dec. 13, Deputy Dist. Atty. Gretchen Ford dropped the case against a juvenile accused of “aiding and abetting” in the killing of 30-year-old Daniel Mejia.

According to one of Curiel’s reports on the crime, two witnesses saw the juvenile defendant with a group of other alleged gang members beating Mejia on Feb. 19. Curiel wrote that a witness reported that, during the beating, one of the young men--not the 15-year-old defendant--pulled out a gun and fatally shot Mejia.

When Ford interviewed that witness herself, however, the witness allegedly gave a markedly different account.

Dave Demerjian, Ford’s supervisor, said the witness told Ford that she did not see any fight before the shooting. The prosecutor said there is no mention in the woman’s initial statement about a fight taking place before the shooting. Nor is it mentioned in the initial arrest report, he said.

Days after the crime, Curiel submitted a follow-up report on the investigation. In that report, dated Feb. 25, Curiel for the first time mentioned that witnesses said they saw a fight involving a group of young men, including the defendant and victim.

Demerjian said he could not account for the seemingly sudden appearance of this information, which he conceded was the linchpin of the prosecution’s case.

“I can’t reconcile that,” he said. “Now, I’m going to go back and read the whole murder book.”

Ford, who was also the prosecutor on the earlier murder case dismissed amid allegations of misconduct by Curiel, declined to comment for this article.

While it is not unusual for witnesses to gang-related homicides to change their stories, Demerjian said Ford, an experienced gang prosecutor, believes the witness “100%” that she did not see any fight. The woman’s daughter, who had the same vantage point and is the only other confirmed witness to the killing, was reluctant to talk to prosecutors.

Lauri Brenner, the deputy public defender who represents the 15-year-old defendant, said it is unlikely that the witness, who still places her client at the scene, would have the legal savvy to know that the alleged fight was a key element of the prosecution’s case.

Brenner said Ford “did the right thing” by dropping the case.

“It’s great to see when a prosecutor can evaluate a case and not get personally attached and let it go if they don’t have it,” she said.

Moreover, Brenner said the questions about the fight and the witnesses’ perception of it are not limited to the detective’s official reports. She said Curiel testified at a hearing in juvenile court on Sept. 7 that at least one of the witnesses “said all five were beating and kicking the victim.”

Neither Ford nor Demerjian was previously aware of that testimony.

“Either they’re recanting, or we’ve got another problem,” Demerjian said, referring to potential misconduct by Curiel.

The murder case is not the only one in which Curiel’s role has been called into question. In a recent auto theft case, a prosecutor was so troubled by Curiel’s conduct that she filed a complaint with his supervisors at the LAPD.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Hutchison accused Curiel of being a lazy and rude detective who had “selective amnesia” when he testified.

Hutchison’s case is a third-strike prosecution against a man who allegedly went joy-riding in a car after it had been left with a valet. The day after the theft, the owner of the car saw it being chased by police in a televised pursuit that ended when the driver crashed the car.

As the owner continued to watch the events unfold on television, he noticed that the man taken out of the vehicle and arrested was not the valet, a fact the owner thought detectives should know.

When the owner called Curiel, he was brushed off, according to an investigative document that summarizes Hutchison’s allegations against the detective. “Curiel told the victim he did not have time for [him] and that he had bigger fish to fry,” the document states.

Details Forgotten After Just Minutes

Later, when the owner went to pick up his car at an auto body shop, he found a bag inside the vehicle containing credit cards, a pawn slip and a syringe, Hutchison said. The owner then called Hutchison who in turn notified Curiel.

After more than a month had expired and Curiel had failed to retrieve the bag of evidence, Hutchison said she asked another detective to intervene and prompt Curiel to respond. The credit cards were stolen and the pawn slip was linked to jewelry that was reported missing in a residential burglary.

On the day of the preliminary hearing in the case, Hutchison said she asked Curiel to interview the car’s owner over the telephone to get the information that the defendant was not the valet. After his phone interview of the victim, Hutchison said she put Curiel on the witness stand and was appalled that the detective could not recall details from that conversation, which had occurred just minutes earlier.

Hutchison said Curiel also falsely testified that the car had been impounded by police when it had not. She said she ended up having to impeach Curiel. After Curiel’s testimony, Hutchison filed a complaint with LAPD supervisors.

In an interview Friday, Hutchison said she believes Curiel should not be a detective. “He should be at a desk answering phones,” she said.

Los Angeles County Public Defender Michael P. Judge agreed.

“This is someone whose investigations should not be relied upon . . . where people’s freedoms are at stake,” Judge said.

Capt. Michel Moore, who supervises Curiel, said he was unaware that a murder charge was dismissed this week or that there were conflicts between Curiel’s report and the witnesses’ recollections in that case.

Moore said he will review the matter to determine whether Curiel should remain in his assignment, be transferred or be relieved from duty until the investigation into his conduct is completed.

Meanwhile, Moore is awaiting the outcome of an internal investigation in which Curiel and two other Rampart Division officers were accused of coercing false testimony from a gang member in a December 1998 homicide.

The gang member said the officer circled a man’s photo and implied that he should finger him for the unsolved killing. If he did not do so, the gang member alleged, the officers implied that he himself would be charged with other unsolved crimes.

It was in that same case that Curiel claims he mistakenly testified about viewing the dead man’s body and interviewing his relatives at the hospital.

“His performance at that hearing was beyond regrettable,” Moore said.